Wednesday, April 30, 2014

It has long been alleged that many who push for restricting guns do so because they do not trust themselves.

A leader in the fight against concealed carry in Illinois
was “charged Monday with using both personal and state-owned computers
to trade hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography,” The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday.
Former State Rep. Keith Farnham also reportedly bragged in online
chats about molesting young children, and allegedly used state-owned
computers to store and trade pictures and videos.

“12 is about as old as i can handle,” charges leaving typographical
errors uncorrected allege Farnham claimed. “i love them at 6 7 8.

Nice of Adam Winkler to lay out this history for us. Yes, FDR really did set in force actions that ended up destroying many of the limitations of government placed on it by the Constitution.

Gun control is one of the great pieces of unfinished business for the
Democratic Party. Although the party has never been unified in its
support of restrictive gun laws – indeed, gun control historically
transcends the usual party lines – for the past century Democrats have
pushed for a more vigorous role for government in regulating guns.
They’ve been largely unsuccessful, however, and lately Democrats have
made Avoid Gun Control an informal plank in the party’s platform.

The Newtown massacre however may have changed all that.

(snip)

Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National
Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax
all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners
objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a
restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were
thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.

The Oklahoma legislature is sending a constitutional amendment to the people for a vote in November of 2014. It is meant to clarify and strengthen the right to keep and bear arms. The desire and need for such clarification is understandable. The current Article II, Section 26, reads:

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

The problem, obviously, is in the last phrase: "...but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”

It gives the legislature a blank check to do what they want, including a ban on the carrying of any weapons. Historically, when legislators have this power, they use it. Most carry of weapons was banned in Kansas for most of the last hundred years.

The replacement of Article II, Section 26, that will be coming up for a vote in November, reads thus:

Section 26.

A. The fundamental right of a each individual citizen to keep and to bear (that is, to carry) arms, including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the components of arms and ammunition, for security, self-defense, lawful hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall not be infringed. Regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

B. This section shall not prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the possession of arms by convicted felons, those adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or those who have been involuntarily committed in any mental institution.

C. No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession, or transfer of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.

Such clarifications of constitutional language have been enacted in other states. Louisiana is the most recent. When presented to the people, such amendments typically pass with more than 74% of the vote. I predict that the Oklahoma amendment passes with 80%. In Wisconsin, the constitutional amendment passed in 1998 with 74% of the vote. In Kansas, such an amendment passed with 88% of the vote in 2010. In Louisiana, Amendment 2 passed with 74% of the vote in 2012.

While activist courts may work to water down the effect of such amendments, the public is more engaged in second amendment issues than on most others. In Wisconsin, when the state supreme court ruled that section 25, even though a fundamental right, was subject to "reasonable regulation", the state elected the Scott Walker administration, which passed one of the least restrictive shall issue laws in the nation, Act 35. The passage of a concealed carry law was a core issue in the campaign.

Update: the Oklahoma Constitutional amendment lost in procedural manuverings in the senate, and will not be on the ballot.

“The
fundamental right of each individual citizen to keep and to bear (that
is, to carry) arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or,
including handguns, rifles, shotguns, knives, nonlethal defensive
weapons and other arms in common use, as well as ammunition and the
components of arms and ammunition, for security, self-defense, lawful
hunting and recreation, in aid of the civil power, when thereunto
legally lawfully summoned, or for any other legitimate purpose shall
never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the
Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons infringed. Any
regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

The amendment also adds two subsections to Section 26, reading:

“This section shall not prevent the Legislature from prohibiting the
possession of arms by convicted felons, those adjudicated as mentally
incompetent, or those who have been involuntarily committed in any
mental institution.”

“No law shall impose registration or special taxation upon the keeping
of arms, including the acquisition, ownership, possession, or transfer
of arms, ammunition, or the components of arms or ammunition.”
- See more at: http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x1378006369/State-gun-language-headed-for-ballot#sthash.9jGA1l9S.dpuf

“The
right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home,
person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto
legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein
contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of
weapons.” - See more at:
http://www.tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x1378006369/State-gun-language-headed-for-ballot#sthash.9jGA1l9S.dpuf

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

While several states, including Indiana, Kansas, and Arizona have passed reforms to prevent the waste of valuable assets in gun "buy backs", Louisiana is looking to expand its program. In these programs, the organizers offer incentives for people to turn in unwanted firearms, often inherited antiques whose owners are unaware of their value. Scholars have concluded that the programs have little, if any effect on crime, while wasting police resources.

Although the term "buy back" has been popularized, the firearms were never owned by the people purchasing them. Critics say that the programs are thinly disguised political propaganda designed to convince people that guns should be turned in to the government and destroyed.

At least one department, in Maine, has gone the obvious middle route, selling the guns that are turned in and donating the money to charity, thus removing the guns from unwanted hands, placing them into normal channels of legal commerce, and utilizing the valuable assets for a public good.

The most controversial part of the proposed law is that it retains the requirement that the valuable property obtained by the program be destroyed. The only exceptions are for police use or recovered stolen items. From the HB 272:

1 Such weapons shall either be destroyed or delivered to law enforcement agencies of2 the city municipality or parish for departmental use. In no case shall such weapon3 be given to any individual, except that a stolen weapon shall be returned to its4 rightful owner on proof of ownership.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Yesterday, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence held a rally that drew a full 25 protesters. They read names of people killed by guns. A grandmother spoke about the murder of her grandson, making sure to convey that her black grandson was killed by a 55-year-old white man. Race makes the argument more powerful, right?

“It was clear that she was not talking about “sensible” gun reform,” says WIBC’s Tony Katz, who was in attendance. “She was there to have a conversation about race. It was odd, unfortunate and unnecessary. It completely undercut any ‘legitimate’ conversation they were having at the rally."

Yesterday, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence held a rally that drew a full 25 protesters.
They read names of people killed by guns. A grandmother spoke about the
murder of her grandson, making sure to convey that her black grandson
was killed by a 55-year-old white man. Race makes the argument more
powerful, right?

“It was clear that she was not talking about “sensible” gun reform,” says WIBC’s Tony Katz,
who was in attendance. “She was there to have a conversation about
race. It was odd, unfortunate and unnecessary. It completely undercut
any ‘legitimate’ conversation they were having at the rally.”

-
See more at:
http://rare.us/story/gun-control-protests-fall-flat-in-indianapolis-are-gun-grabbers-overplaying-their-hand/#sthash.USwwPgKB.dpuf

Yesterday, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence held a rally that drew a full 25 protesters.
They read names of people killed by guns. A grandmother spoke about the
murder of her grandson, making sure to convey that her black grandson
was killed by a 55-year-old white man. Race makes the argument more
powerful, right?

“It was clear that she was not talking about “sensible” gun reform,” says WIBC’s Tony Katz,
who was in attendance. “She was there to have a conversation about
race. It was odd, unfortunate and unnecessary. It completely undercut
any ‘legitimate’ conversation they were having at the rally.”

-
See more at:
http://rare.us/story/gun-control-protests-fall-flat-in-indianapolis-are-gun-grabbers-overplaying-their-hand/#sthash.USwwPgKB.dpuf

The Guardian, a far left British paper, has written an article entitled: NRA lecture details ways to circumvent restrictions on buying guns. After that bit of hyperbole, admittedly not uncommon for headlines, the writer starts to explain what the lecture was about.
It was about how to legally protect and restore the rights to own and use firearms. The lecturer took care to be relatively mild in his approach. From the Guardian:

Ciyou took care to stress that those convicted of the most serious
felonies and those with the most dangerous mental health problems should
not be allowed to access firearms. However, he dismissed Obama's
proposals as “emotionally-driven”, and called the president's focus
since Sandy Hook on the threat posed to children by guns a “red
herring”.

From the comments, as might be expected in a left wing european paper, apparantly the more people that are forbidden from owning guns, the better, and once forbidden, forever forbidden. Here is one of the comments on the nastier side, from Wonkothesane76:

When the gun debate comes to these pages, the pro-gun lot
always try to tell us that its a problem with the mentally ill, or
criminals having guns......how the hell does that defence work now??

Please let the next, inevitable massacre involve members of the NRA and their loved ones. Let them reap what they sow.

Here is another, from Nelson Ricardo:

The NRA are utter disgusting filth. One can only hope they all end up shooting themselves accidentally with their own firearms.

But as has been noted numerous times, second amendment supporters, with the Internet, are now well represented in the comments. From Rattel:

So to sum the article up, Obama has caused gun laws to
tighten up and basically prevent more people from possessing guns. The
NRA is resisting this and has held a seminar exploring entirely legal
ways of resisting the government's erosion of a constitutional right.

Reading the comments is educational, in the sense that it gives one insight into the world view of far leftists, where governments do no wrong (unless they are not leftist) and the NRA is an malicious organization bent on evil...

As part of the antiquated and constitutionally questionable National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), heads of local law enforcement were required to sign off on the acquisition of tax stamps required to own gun mufflers, short barreled rifles or shotguns, and fully automatic firearms, that were transferred across state lines.

With the Supreme Court firmly in "progressive" hands, the law quickly morphed into a federal requirement that a $200 tax stamp had to be paid, along with requirements for fingerprints and registration for any of the restricted items, whether they crossed state lines or not. Everyone understood that this was a virtual prohibition/registration system under the disguise of a "tax" in order to give it a faint hint of constitutionality. Very few tax stamps were purchased. In 1934, the $200 tax was worth about $4,000 in todays money.

The requirement for local law enforcement approval to allow someone to pay a federal tax shows the insanity of the measure. It clearly crossed the line of separation of powers between the federal government and the states.

The arrangement continues to exist to this day, long after it has been superseded by technology and Supreme Court rulings on the separation of powers and the second amendment.

Because of a highly questionable amendment in 1986, the number of automatic firearms available to the general public is frozen, and few transfers of them take place. The overwhelming majority of NFA tax stamps today are for gun mufflers and short barreled rifles and shotguns. There is no logical reason to treat any of those items with higher levels of regulation than handguns, which have been recognized as constitutionally protected since the Heller and McDonald decisions.

To legally possess any of these items, a person has to obtain the approval of a local law enforcement chief. Some chiefs sign the form quickly and easily, some abuse their power, either because of ideology, personal animosity, or fear of liability, and refuse to allow people to pay the federal tax.

Arizona recently followed the example of other states, such as Tennessee, by removing this decision from the chief law enforcement officer, unless the chief could provide written proof that the applicant was legally prohibited from possessing the items. From the bill:

...the chief law enforcement officer,
within sixty days after receipt of a request for certification by an applicant,
shall provide the certification if the applicant is not prohibited by law from
receiving the firearm or is not the subject of a proceeding that could result in
the applicant being prohibited by law from receiving the firearm.

I thought Governor Brewer would sign SB 1366. It seemed a non controversial reform that deconflicted two definitions of what is a firearm under Arizona law, making it clear that air guns are not firearms.

Here is the story from an AZCDL alert:

Don’t be caught with an air rifle!

There are conflicting definitions of a firearm in Arizona statutes. One, ARS 13-105, uses the “action of an expanding gas” to define a firearm. This definition includes air-operated rifles and pistols. Meanwhile, ARS 13-3101 uses the “action of an explosive” to define a firearm.

What makes the conflicting definitions sinister is ARS 13-3107 which makes the “unlawful discharge” of a firearm within city limits a class 6 felony. As a result, a backyard plinking session with your child and their Daisy Air Rifle could result in your arrest since either firearms definition could be applied.

SB 1366 would have updated the firearms definition in ARS 13-3101 to a weapon that uses “rapidly expanding gases created by a burning propellant or burning powder.” Additionally, ARS 13-3107 (unlawful discharge) was changed to explicitly refer to the ARS 13-3101 firearm definition and not the air rifle definition.

When in doubt, obfuscate.

All very logical to any thinking person, but not to Governor Brewer. In her veto letter, she claims that criminals would now be able to take their “weapons” (air rifles?) into public buildings, court houses, jails and polling places. And, she claims, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from even temporarily taking these “weapons” away from someone. Finally, because the words “readily convertible” would be removed from ARS 13-3101, the Governor claims that all a bad guy would need to do is disassemble a firearm to legally carry it anywhere they wished. Her staffers must have missed (or chosen not to see) the “readily converted” language that was added to ARS 13-3102 (weapons misconduct) when doing their research.

Truly Bizarre. It is a sad way for Governor Brewer to leave office. She signed several bills that moved Arizona to first place in weapons law in the United States. Governor Brewer helped clean up numerous problems, including huge budget deficits left over from her predecessor, Janet Napolitano Napolitano took the office of head of homeland security in the Obama administration.

A growing trend in state governments is the reform of antiquated knife laws. The laws were often passed decades ago. They have been overtaken by Constitutional law. Clearly, if firearms are protected under the second amendment, so are knives.

Last year, in 2013, Kansas reformed their knife laws, enacting a statewide preemption to prevent local governments from chilling the exercise of second amendment rights for knives. The law was found to have some ambiguity, so this year, as part of an overall weapons law reform bill, it was made clear that old local laws were repealed, and that it was illegal to attempt to enforce them. The reform law was signed by Kansas Governor Brownback.From akti.org:

Sec. 4. K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 12-16,134 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12-16,134. (a) A municipality shall not enact or enforce any
ordinance, resolution, rule regulation or tax relating to the
transportation, possession, carrying, sale, transfer, purchase, gift, devise, licensing, registration or use of a knife or knife making components.

(b) A municipality shall not enact or enforce any ordinance,
resolution or rule regulation relating to the manufacture of a
knife that is more restrictive than any such ordinance, resolution or rule
regulation relating to the manufacture of any other commercial
goods.

(c ) Any ordinance, resolution or regulation prohibited by either subsection (a) or (b) that was adopted prior to July 1, 2014, shall be null and void.

(d) No action shall be commenced or prosecuted against any individual for a violation of any ordinance, resolution or regulation that is prohibited by either subsection (a) or (b) and which was adopted prior to July 1, 2014, if such violation occurred on or after July 1, 2013.

While I am not a lawyer, the state of knife law in Kansas appears to be very close to that of constitutional carry.

The only knives that are banned are throwing stars, narrowly defined, and "ballistic knives".

No permit is required to carry any legal knife, and that means items with a point or an edge that are not throwing stars or ballistic knives.

The suspect fled the home, and the homeowner followed him outside,
police said. The suspect got into his Dodge Charger and drove toward the
homeowner, causing him to fire one shot at the vehicle, police said.

The shot hit the middle of the windshield, but the suspect was able to flee north on Main Street, police said.

INDIANAPOLIS – As the NRA convention weekend gets underway, an
Indiana native is shoring up support for his organization that will give
away free shotguns to law-abiding citizens in high crime Indianapolis
neighborhoods.

Kyle Coplen started the Armed Citizen Project
in hopes of proving that guns can deter crime if owned and used by
responsible citizens. Recipients must be vetted by the ACP, pass a
background check, and take an ACP training course before getting a free
shotgun.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

In an unusual move, the Vermont Supreme Court today overturned the
murder conviction of a Windsor County man who has spent three years in
prison for a shooting he has long claimed was self-defense.

In a 5-0 opinion, justices ruled that a trial judge improperly excluded
key evidence that could have bolstered Kyle Bolaski's claim of
self-defense in the 2008 shooting of Vincent Tamburello, who had charged
at a group of Bolaski's friends with a small axe. Additionally, the
court said the judge gave improper instructions to jurors that made the
murder conviction more likely.

States are still where most of the action is on gun laws, as recent events have proven once again. Bills in Georgia, Tennessee and Arizona have met one fate or another, for good or ill for Second Amendment rights.

First the good news. In Georgia, Republican Gov. Nathan Deal on Wednesday signed into law the “Safe Carry Protection Act.” Critics labeled it the “guns everywhere” bill, while the National Rifle Association calls it “the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history.” The law, effective July 1, does indeed remove some old and unnecessary restrictions on gun rights. As Deal said, “Our state has some of the best protections for gun owners in the United States. And today we strengthen those rights protected by our nation's most revered founding document.”

The bill permits licensed gun owners, either Georgia residents or visitors from 28 states with which Georgia shares reciprocity, to bring firearms into bars and some government buildings if no security measures are in place. Furthermore, school districts are empowered to decide on allowing armed employees, while places of worship can likewise opt to allow the carrying of firearms.

The Georgia Municipal Association, which represents the state's 538 cities, sought a veto, saying, “Local elected officials are responsible for securing and maintaining public safety, and insurance coverage, in buildings owned and operated by the city. Therefore, they should have the authority to make a decision about whether to allow weapons in such buildings.” If they don't have metal detectors or other security checkpoints, they have effectively made their decision because a sign won't stop a bad guy with a gun.

Which brings us to Tennessee, where Republican Bill Haslam recently expressed “major concerns” about a bill that would preempt city ordinances regarding carrying firearms in public parks. In 2009, the legislature passed a law expanding protection for Second Amendment rights but gave cities and counties the option of banning firearms in public parks. Unfortunately, the four major cities in Tennessee, though plagued with urban plantation gangs, opted to ban firearms in parks. If Haslam is inclined to veto the latest bill, he may have to wait for a bill. Though the state Senate approved it in February, the House Finance Subcommittee placed it “behind the budget,” which means it won't be considered until after the state budget near the end of this year's term.

Finally, in Arizona, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer did veto a pro-gun bill. It would have amended current preemption law to impose penalties on city officials who prosecute gun owners for violating ordinances out of line with state law. She said citizens can already sue over laws they consider unjust. Small comfort.

Brewer also vetoed a bill similar to Georgia's that would allow licensed carry in government buildings that have no security measures. Or, put another way, the bill would have required that “gun free” government buildings actually take steps beyond hoping people obey a sign to ensure that no one is armed upon entering.

“I am a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, and I have signed into law numerous pieces of legislation to advance and protect gun rights,” Brewer wrote. “However, I cannot support this measure in its proposed form.” Her given reason is that it would cost cities money to actually secure their buildings. Evidently she'd rather live with the illusion that a sign is security enough.

Are there places where guns shouldn't be allowed? Sure, but, again, it takes more than a sign to disarm anyone – unless the objective is to disarm only the people who obey laws. We're glad to see the Second Amendment thrive in Georgia, but we're troubled by the roadblocks thatRepublicans have set up in Tennessee and Arizona.

A citizen observer reports from the Bundy Ranch in Nevada that the volunteers guarding the Bundys are responding to Harry Reid's labeling of them as "Domestic Terrorists".

They are wearing name badges with "Hello, my name is "Domestic Terrorist".

It would be funny if totalitarian regimes had not used this tactic for the last 80 years. Most people remember how Stalinists labeled anyone who opposed them as "Enemies of the State". The phrase was even popularized in books and a movie. Here is the report:

I just returned last night from 5 days in Bunkerville. Many of the
patriots there were wearing “Hello, my name is “Domestic Terrorist””
badges.

The Oath Keepers were in force with many new faces arriving daily. The
militia were also there in force. I didn’t count, but there were a number
of folks there who feel as below, that the government has outlived its
usefulness and needs to be reined in.

The leadership in the field in Bunkerville is asking for volunteers to
rotate up for a stay for as long as possible. The idea is to have the
camps full and people moving about continuously to show support for and
protection of the Bundys.

If you can squeeze a couple or three days into your schedule, think about
lending physical support to the cause. If that’s not possible, donations
to “www.oathkeepers.org” will help feed and keep the watch keepers
hydrated.

I was glad for the chance to participate and when I get my act together
down here will probably head back up for another stint.

It is easy to sympathize with the Bundys as another citizen who the Leviathan is wearing down with burdensome regulations that cannot be followed without going bankrupt. The government has promulgated so many regulations, rules, and laws that it is impossible for anyone to keep up, and in the case of the Bundys, the expense to fight them in court can easily be ruinous in and of itself.

This letter, said to be from one of Bundy's fellow ranchers, is purported to show why so many ranchers support the Bundys, while not doing the same as they have:

“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he
did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably
wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though
they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not
realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the
following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this
grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this
grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory”
terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of
livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of
active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc.

The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as
where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use
of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more
stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this
“contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or
she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and
drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert
tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert
tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family
friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non-ranchers,
that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there
were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada.
Presently, there are 3.

Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of
the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely
unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr.
Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay.
Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed
his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for
himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical
federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken
away.

Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the
forage rights those permits allow – – not rights to the land, but rights
to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water
based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned,
not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock
to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a
rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the
appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then
he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go
hand in hand.

Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a
rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that
their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family
has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned.
And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred
years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed
along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a
whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen.
This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single handedly took a stand
against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero”.

Whether Clive Bundy would prevail in court with first rate counsel and a legal fund that could match the almost unlimited resources of the federal government has become irrelevant for many. Too many Americans have been mistreated by the system, and no longer believe that the bureaucracies or the courts can be trusted.

It is this trust that needs to be rebuilt, and it can only be done by a long process that relies on the rule of law rather than the law of who is ruling at the time. The BLM did the right thing by pulling back.

If President Obama wants to do the right thing by the country, he would give a blanket pardon to everyone involved in the incident, like Washington did to those in the Whiskey rebellion. Then he would call for an investigation of Harry Reid and a renewed study of the desert tortoise that would withstand peer review.

Unfortunately, I doubt that President Obama is a statesman of that caliber.

The Washington Post printed some errors in its reporting on gun law. So, what else is new? That was my first reaction. It has happened so often with the old media, I simply noted it and shrugged.

A couple of hours later, I decided it was worth reporting on, so I went back to the original article, and they had been corrected! This shows that the power of the new media is growing. I did not make a snap shot of the original error. Here is what the post put up as notice of correction:

(CORRECTION: This post has been updated to reflect the following:
the fingerprinting requirement was only removed for license renewals,
not all licenses; guns are explicitly allowed, with written
authorization from the appropriate official, at certain school-related
locations, not on the premises.)

The comments on the article quickly noted the errors, which to be fair, were likely simply passed on by the Post from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, which is another old media institution that has been thoroughly smug in its anti-second amendment attitudes. One of the commenters, reg241, quickly caught one of the errors:

You are still finger printed when getting a license in Georgia, the new law for no finger printing is for renewing.

TheGunmother challenged them:

That is not
what the article says. Furthermore, some states that do not require
fingerprinting have reciprocity with states that do. Automobiles have
more stringent record keeping and requirements than CC and you can't
drive a car into a bar. So quit comparing the death rate to drunk
drivers.

Then darthjasper confirmed that the error had been made:

To quote the
HB 60: "Section 1.7 (c) Fingerprinting. Following completion of the
application for a weapons carry license or the renewal of a license, the
judge of the probate court shall require the applicant to proceed to an
appropriate law enforcement agency in the county or to any vendor
approved by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for fingerprint
submission services with the completed application."

This may shock you but sometimes reporters are simply wrong.

It is worth while to read the comments, because the level of ignorance and arrogance on the other side has to be witnessed to be understood. Yes, most of those who support turning the second amendment into a meaningless asterisk in history books really are that ignorant and arrogant.

It is nice to see the Post correct their error so quickly. There is evidence that the Post is starting to turn away from their condescending attitude toward gun ownership.

Mason Brannon of Paragould was arrested on March 1st for
carrying a firearm without a concealed carry permit. Brannon’s arrest,
and his pending prosecution, could serve as the first “test case” of Act 746, which became law last year. However, the trial won’t be a walk in the park for Prosecutor Scott Ellington
— because Act 746 imposes a new, and especially high, burden of proof
on the state. Thanks to Act 746, possession of a firearm is no longer a
crime in Arkansas.

Under the act, which has been codified under ACA 5-73-120,

A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if
he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her
person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily
available for use with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ the
handgun…

Friday, April 25, 2014

Army veteran and chaplain Nicholas Purpura exploded on Democratic lawmakers in a passionate speech during a New Jersey gun control forum, resulting in thunderous applause from the packed room. Though the video is from February, the veteran’s impassioned speech went largely unnoticed and is now getting some attention.

Governor Brewer has been considered a friend of second amendment supporters. When she was under threat of reelection, she signed constitutional carry into law. Under her watch, Arizona has taken the lead as the most advanced state in the union when scored on restoring second amendment rights.

Just this week, Georgia Governor Deal signed into law a long list of long awaited gun law reforms. Kansas Governor Brownback signed a package at least as significant, if not even more far reaching. And Governor Brewer vetoed the third of six self defense reforms that have come to her desk in the last week.

Governor Brewer vetoed a bill nearly the same as Kansas passed last year, to insure that citizens are not disarmed in public buildings, while those who ignore the law can walk in without effective hindrance. She vetoed a bill to put teeth in the states preemption statute, such as Florida found necessary. And yesterday, she vetoed a bill that made it clear that if someone was violently attempting to disarm you, you could treat them as a deadly threat.

The bill, HB 2338, would have given the same protections to legally armed citizens who are not police officers as it does to police officers, by making illegal attempts to disarm them an aggravated assault.

From the current list of actions that constitute aggravated assault:

9. If the person knowingly takes or attempts to exercise
control over any of the following:

(a) A peace officer's or other officer's firearm and
the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer or
other officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10,
subdivision (a), item (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of this subsection and is
engaged in the execution of any official duties.

From the proposed bill, HB 2338:

(d) A person's firearm, with the intent to cause harm with that firearm, that is lawfully possessed by the person in accordance with federal and state law. This subdivision does not apply to a peace officer who takes or attempts to exercise control over a person's firearm while the officer is engaged in the execution of any official duties or to a person who is justified in using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.

Governor Brewer is not running for reelection as Governor.

One more gun law reform is waiting for her signature. It is a simple reform that changes Arizona law from having two different definitions of what a firearm is, to one consistent definition that excludes air guns. If Governor Brewer signs it, she will have signed three of the six that have come to her desk. this year.

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Governor Deal signed Georgia's modest gun law reform today, 23 April, 2014. Gun law reform has been stalled in Georgia for several years, leading to the measure that makes several modest changes in Georgia's law. None of the changes are particularly radical. All, with one possible exception, have been adopted in other states before this law was passed. From FoxNews.com:

The bill makes several changes to state law. It allows those with a
license to carry to bring a gun into a bar without restriction and into
some government buildings that don't have certain security measures. It
also allows religious leaders to decide whether it's OK for a person
with a carry license to bring a gun into their place of worship.

Stating that under a declared state of emergency, all law-abiding
gun owners will not have their Second Amendment rights restricted or
infringed by executive authority through Emergency Powers protection.

Strengthening current firearms preemption statutes through further
clarification of the regulatory authority of local governments,
excluding firearm discharge ordinances.

Allowing school systems to decide whether staff and faculty may
carry a firearm on school property, pending approved training, similar
to the NRA’s National School Shield program.

Allowing the lawful carry by WCL holders in government buildings
where it is not currently restricted or security screening personnel are
posted during regular business hours.

Hunting with suppressors allowed.

Opt in for Churches, rather than traditional private property
rights, and reduction for of the penalty for carrying in a church that
does not opt in to a $100 civil fine.

The one provision that I have not seen in other states is the provision that may create a legal defense for people who use a firearm in justified self defense, even if they have previously been convicted of a felony. It is common for people who have had to go through the trauma of defending themselves with lethal force, to then face mandatory prison terms because they were not allowed to possess a firearm due to a previous felony conviction. I recall one case where the defender managed to disarm his attacker and use the weapon to defend his family. He still faced prosecution, even though the firearm that he "possessed" had been brought to the situation by the hands of his attacker.

I have only read Collin Goddard, as an anti-second amendment
advocate, make this claim, so I am not certain that it is a real part of
the law. Here is his claim, from foxnews.com:

Colin Goddard, who survived the 2007 campus shooting at Virginia Tech,
told Georgia Public Broadcasting he's alarmed by a provision that waives
criminal prosecution of felons who use illegal firearms in the act of
self-defense.

I do not think that felons should be prosecuted for justifiably defending themselves against deadly force. Perhaps an attorney can read the statute and determine if the above is an actual effect of the law.

There will be a gun turn in event in Milwaukee
on Saturday, 17 May, 2014. While these events are commonly labeled with the
propaganda term
"buyback" the guns were never owned by the people attempting to buy
them.

The event will be held at Tabernacle Community Baptist Church, 2500 W. Medford Ave. The jsonline.com article indicates that it is in a high crime neighborhood.

The event is scheduled to run from 10 am to 2 pm. People often turn up early at these events.

Details of the gun buyback, such as the amount of money offered for different types of firearms, are still being organized.

It is common at these events for rifles and shotguns to be accepted for amounts from $50 to $100, handguns from $50 to $150, and "assault rifles" from $150 to $250. What is considered an "assault rifle" often depends on what the individual at the turn in event decides is one at the moment it is turned in.

This may be the first gun turn in event in Milwaukee since 2005. Wisconsin is a gun friendly state, with a high percentage of avid deer and duck hunters, as well as offering good goose, ruffed grouse, turkey, bear, squirrel, rabbit and pheasant hunting. The Milwaukee Journal ran a famous column by Gordon Macquarrie until 1956, glorifying the the hunting camp in northern Wisconsin. On the start of deer season, the freeways are often jammed with hunters heading north to the hunting camps. It is likely that there are numerous attics in Milwaukee with forgotten treasures that belonged to grandpa or even great-grandpa.

The potential for valuable old guns being turned in is very large. I would be surprised if there were no Savage model 99 deer rifles or Winchester model 1897 shotguns turned in. There will likely be some decent double barreled shotguns; maybe even a drilling that a German immigrant brought over from the old country. Milwaukee supplied many WWII soldiers, and there is a good chance that WWII trophy Lugers, P-38s, Mausers, Enfields, and Springfields will turn up. Up until 1968, many of these guns were available mail order for a few dollars. I will be surprised if at least one M1 carbine and one M1 Garand are not turned in.

Private sales are legal in Wisconsin, but the Milwaukee police chief, Ed Flynn is infamous for his animosity to armed citizens. In 2009, before the passage of the shall issue law in Wisconsin, Chief Flynn said, as recorded on washingtoncountysheriffwi.org:

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the
streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away
and then decide whether you have a right to carry it."

Chief Flynn was imported from Massachusetts. It is not so easy to find his intolerant attitude in Wisconsin. The law has been clarified since that point, and several settlements have been paid to citizens who were falsely arrested while legally carrying guns. It would be well for private buyers to have recorders and to operate in pairs so as to deter police misconduct.

To give an idea of what sort of guns might come into this turn in, consider that Chief Flynn is sitting on about $2,000,000 worth of guns that have already been turned in, and which Wisconsin law makes difficult for the authorities to sell.

If
there is much of a turn out at the turn in, private buyers
should look for easy places for people to park so that the merchandise
can be looked at prior to purchase. Often people bring several guns to
these turn in events. As the event is only scheduled for four hours at one location, do not be surprised if there are long lines of people waiting to turn in guns, and many disappointed people when the organizers run out of money. Both situations bode well for private purchasers.

You might want to read about the Phoenix event to see how things were handled there.

Be
prepared for a percentage of people who refuse to talk to anyone but
police. All the private buyers that I saw in Phoenix were very polite
and let these ideologically driven people turn in their guns for a
fraction of what they would be worth on the open market.

Signs
are helpful, as are good grooming, cash, and a friendly attitude. Dale
Carnegie's advise for dealing with people works very well.

Across the country, communities, police departments and churches
are sponsoring gun turn-ins to get "guns off the street". At many of
these events, private buyers are showing up, offering cash for the more
valuable guns. These private additions to the public turn-in are
effective, no doubt, in getting more guns off the street, because they
add to the resources that are available to those who want to get rid of
guns for something of value, be it a grocery card or a number of twenty
dollar bills.

You can help make the turn-in in your
area more effective by standing on the curb with your "Cash for Guns"
sign, or at a folding table, willing to offer more than the gift card
for firearms that are more valuable. It would be best if numerous
private parties were available, as more good guns could then be
transferred into responsible hands.

This action serves
many useful purposes. It stretches the turn-in budget so that more guns
can be taken off the street. It helps keep fearful widows from being
defrauded of most of the market value of the gun they are turning in.
It prevents valuable assets from being destroyed by bureaucratic
inflexibility. It is a win-win-win situation. The ideal situation for those organizing the turn in would be to allow
private buyers to purchase the valuable guns, while having the
organizers take the cheap guns "off the streets". As these events
are ideologically driven, that seems unlikely, but it might be worth an
attempt at outreach. All parties would benefit.

Private buyers dispel the pernicious message that guns are bad and should be destroyed.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed HB 2578 into law today, 23 April, 2014. The law strengthens state preemption by preventing local governments from banning the open carry of firearms and making the disclosure of the possession of a concealed carry license a condition of employment. From kansas.com:

The governor has signed a bill that will bar local governments from enforcing local gun ordinances, his office announced Wednesday morning.

It requires adequate signage to prohibit the open carry of firearms by
premises that choose to do so. There is no penalty for open carrying
in such premises unless the open carrier refuses to leave when asked to
do so.

Guns that are forfeited to law enforcement agencies are
mostly prohibited from being destroyed, unless used in a homicide. Local
governments are not allowed to spend money on gun "buyback" programs

Local governments are given immunity from lawsuit for employees that
commit a wrongful act with a firearm, and are not allowed to ask if
employees have a concealed carry license as a condition of employment.
Local governments are allowed limit employees from possessing weapons
while working.

Firearms may not be carried while under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. There are exceptions for private
property and unloaded firearms. The blood alcohol standards that apply
to impaired driving are applied to the carry of loaded weapons.

A broad knife pre-emption is part of this package, part of a trend that
recognizes that knives are arms protected by the second amendment.

Governor Brownback signed another firearms reform bill a year ago on the 16th of April, 2013.

On 22 April, the Arizona legislature passed SB 1366, a reform of the definition of what is a firearm in Arizona law. The legislation now goes to Governor Brewer, who has 5 working days to veto it, sign it, or allow it to become law. The fate of the bill was uncertain until the last minute. The bills supporters were able to use parliamentary maneuvering to bring the bill up for a vote, where it passed easily.

Arizona has long suffered under two potentially contradictory definitions of what is a firearm under the law. I taught these two definitions for fifteen years as a concealed carry instructor, and no one could ever be sure which definition would be applied to any given situation. The problem was that one part of the law defined a firearm as a device that expelled a projectile by means of an explosion, while another defined a firearm as a device that expels a projectile by means of explosive expansion of a gas. This was sometimes used to include airguns as firearms. The new definition would change both to be the same, and include these words:

rapidly expanding gases created by a burning
propellant or burning powder.

The new definition positively removes airguns from the definition of firearms.

It seems likely that Governor Brewer will sign the bill. She recently vetoed two gun law reform bills and may feel the need to mend fences with second amendment supporters.

The robber then asked the clerk to kneel on the ground while he grabbed a
pack of cigarettes. That’s when the clerk pulled out a gun of his own
and shot the man in the hand. The man dropped his gun and fled the
scene.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Governor Jan Brewer vetoed gun law reforms that would have held local governments accountable. HB 2517 would have put teeth into the state's preemption law, with penalties for government officials that prosecuted people for violating illegitimate local ordinances. Florida passed a similar bill in 2011 after scofflaw governments routinely persecuted citizens who exercised their second amendment rights. Pennsylvania and Ohio are considering similar measures.

HB 2339 would have ensured that local governments who wished to prevent people from carrying weapons in public buildings would have to do more than depend on those who would obey signs directing them to disarm. If people with a permit were not allowed into the public buildings, then security measures would have been required to insure that those who did not obey the law were disarmed as well. Representative Brenda Barton of Payson was disappointed at the veto. A similar bill had been vetoed last year, and she said that she had crafted the bill to address the Governor's issues with it. From therepublic.com:

House Bill 2339 would have allowed people with concealed-carry permits
to bring weapons into government buildings unless security measures —
including armed guards, metal detectors and gun lockers — are in place.
The measure excluded public K-12 schools, community colleges and
universities.

Kansas passed a similar bill last year. Opponents of the bill have claimed that it will require them to spend large amounts of money to implement; proponents have noted that it does not take much money to remove a sign.

Governor Brewer has served two terms and is not expected to run for reelection.

In Arizona, a few women and children lobbied Governor Brewer to veto legislation designed to help keep people safe in the state. John Lott, one of the foremost researchers on the effects of legislation restricting access to defense options, has noted that the vast majority of public mass shootings occur in gun free zones. From a nationalreview.com interview:

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception,
the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every
public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three
people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed
to carry guns.”

The law in Arizona is designed to insure that if law abiding people are disarmed in a particular location, then there must be a reasonable attempt to insure that criminals are also screened for carrying weapons. Public buildings would not be allowed to ban licensed people from carrying arms unless security measures such as metal detectors and armed guards are in place. The Kansas legislature passed a nearly identical bill into law in 2013. A similar bill passed the legislature last year, but was vetoed by Governor Brewer. Some speculated that it was vetoed under pressure from Arizona educators. This year the legislation exempts universities and colleges from the requirements.

The bill, HB2339 passed 34 to 22 in the House and 16 to 12 in the Senate. Governor Brewer has until the end of today, 22 April, 2014, to either sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without her signature.

I watched the news event on video from azcentral.com. I counted six children and six adults, though the video was not designed to give a count. One of the women had lost a child in a drive by shooting several years ago. I am not sure what that has to do with the current bill. Concealed carry permit holders are more responsible with their weapons than police. But, this lobbying is not rational or logical. It is emotional, by design.

A hat tip to joehuffman.org for pointing out the absurd in this article from ABCnews. It quotes Shannon Watts as saying the following:

“I think the NRA should be very afraid of Americans, who’ve had enough
of the gun violence in this country and in particular moms,” Shannon
Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action and a board member for Everytown
for Gun Safety, said. “Moms are afraid our children will be taken away
and in the end, I think that’s the emotion that will win the debate.”

So Ms. Watts believes that debates are about emotion, and apparently, questions of law should be decided by the fears of mothers rather than by facts, thought, rational consideration of reality and reasonably expected consequences. Not that we shouldn't be afraid of Ms. Watts and the power of the anti-second amendment media and politicians behind her.

Relying on the power of emotion over fact and logic is a standard ploy for sophists whose facts and logic do not make the grade. It is standard fare for those who believe that people are too stupid to control their own lives, so they have to be lied to in order to bring their "betters" into power to take care of them. It is the mainstay of the nanny state.

The danger is that emotions can win debates, when those emotions are backed up by threats of violence. An inflamed mob or majority can kill you. If you inflame the ignorant enough, you can get them to go along with disarming and killing those whom they are told are the danger. You can use emotion to concentrate the power in the hands of the government to kill off the educated, as in Cambodia, or the Jews, as in the Holocaust.

Police say the shooting happened around 2 a.m. on Newberry
Street in Hartford. The homeowner was trying to pull into his driveway, when
two other drivers blocking the way, refused to move their vehicles.

Following a
verbal altercation, officials say one of the drivers pointed a gun at the
homeowner. The homeowner, reached for his own gun and fired first.

According to police, the "victim" was a concealed carry licensee who was returning home with a friend when the two thugs confronted them. Blake stuck
a shotgun in the victim's face] while Williams put a handgun to the
head of his friend and forced them both inside the building.

As Blake turned to talk to someone behind him, the concealed carrier took action. He drew his .357 Magnum and fired multiple shots at Blake - striking him twice in the chest.

The Popular Mechanics article shows that it understands technology much better than the New York Times or the Washington Post. This isn't too surprising, given the politics of the the two prominent newspapers, but it was not always so.

So, should we be afraid to live in a world where anyone can afford the
equipment to manufacture a gun in his or her basement? I hope
not—because that's the world we live in now. Guns are comparatively
simple devices. In fact, plenty of custom firearms are manufactured
today using equipment that wouldn't be out of place in a basement.

The utility of 3D printed guns is not so much that they make the technology of firearms available to everyman; that has been the case for centuries. The utility is that it demonstrates that fact in a way that resonates with those in the "progressive elite", especially in the old media, that they were blind to otherwise.

They may never have operated a drill press; they may never have filed a washer to make a shim of the right thickness; they may never have ground a screwdriver blade to the proper size and shape for the task at hand. But, they have operated a printer!

So when someone talks about 3D printed guns, it is a revelation, a "road to Damascus" moment. They understand that it would be possible for them, and almost anyone, to set up the machine and hit the "print" button.

This is a good thing, because it brings them a bit closer to understanding the reality beyond their "progressive" theories. Some "progressives" are known to mature out of "progressivism". The more that do, the more we have a chance to escape the devastating consequences of willfully ignorant policy makers.

According to investigators, a man kicked in the door to a home on
Glenheath and Ruthby around 4:50 a.m. on Sunday. A husband and wife
were home at the time. The husband shot the suspect twice in the
abdomen.

Monday, April 21, 2014

The resident told them he didn’t want trouble, and both drivers briefly left but then returned and drove toward his
car. One, Edwin Franqui, rammed the Newbury Street man’s car head-on, while the other, Leanardo Vasquez, pulled
alongside the man and aimed a gun at him, according to police.
The resident pulled out his own pistol and fired several shots; one struck Vasquez, police said.
Vasquez, 23, ran off and was later admitted to a hospital and listed in stable condition,
according to police.
More Here

The
resident told them he didn’t want trouble, and both drivers briefly
left but then returned and drove toward his car. One, Edwin Franqui,
rammed the Newbury Street man’s car head-on, while the other, Leanardo
Vasquez, pulled alongside the man and aimed a gun at him, according to
police.
The resident pulled out his own pistol and fired several shots; one
struck Vasquez, police said. Vasquez, 23, ran off and was later admitted
to a hospital and listed in stable condition, according to police.
Franqui, 22, was arrested by arriving officers and charged with failing
to drive in the proper lane, driving with a suspended license and
failing to carry a license. Police said he later damaged a door at
police headquarters and was charged with criminal mischief.

The
resident told them he didn’t want trouble, and both drivers briefly
left but then returned and drove toward his car. One, Edwin Franqui,
rammed the Newbury Street man’s car head-on, while the other, Leanardo
Vasquez, pulled alongside the man and aimed a gun at him, according to
police.
The resident pulled out his own pistol and fired several shots; one
struck Vasquez, police said. Vasquez, 23, ran off and was later admitted
to a hospital and listed in stable condition, according to police.
Franqui, 22, was arrested by arriving officers and charged with failing
to drive in the proper lane, driving with a suspended license and
failing to carry a license. Police said he later damaged a door at
police headquarters and was charged with criminal mischief.

The
resident told them he didn’t want trouble, and both drivers briefly
left but then returned and drove toward his car. One, Edwin Franqui,
rammed the Newbury Street man’s car head-on, while the other, Leanardo
Vasquez, pulled alongside the man and aimed a gun at him, according to
police.
The resident pulled out his own pistol and fired several shots; one
struck Vasquez, police said. Vasquez, 23, ran off and was later admitted
to a hospital and listed in stable condition, according to police.
Franqui, 22, was arrested by arriving officers and charged with failing
to drive in the proper lane, driving with a suspended license and
failing to carry a license. Police said he later damaged a door at
police headquarters and was charged with criminal mischief.

Sunday, April 20, 2014

In most of the United States, it has always been legal to buy and sell firearms privately without any paperwork. Private sales are not required to go through a Federal Firearms License (FFL). It is against the law to build or maintain a Federal firearms registry. One of the purposes of this restriction is to insure against firearms confiscation by the Federal government.

There are a few states that have effectively banned private sales. California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Rhode Island, are six states that require that private parties have a background check
conducted by the government before each sale, effectively making the "private" sales public. Having a background check done on the buyer does not mean that the guns are checked to determine if they were stolen at some point.

Pennsylvania and Maryland require background checks for pistols, and a
number of other states have various requirements for permits to purchase
that may or may not require that information about the firearm be
entered into a government database. 80% of the states do not regulate
private sales of firearms.

For the purposes of legal action that might be taken against a purchaser, it is the number of guns that are reported stolen and available to be found on a database searched by police that is important. Many millions of guns were manufactured before the government started to mandate that guns have serial numbers. There is no way to determine if those firearms were stolen, unless there is some sort of distinctive marking that could connect the firearm to a previous owner. That sort of marking could be input into the FBI data base nearly as easily as a serial number.

The FBI has maintained the database of stolen guns for the United States since 1967, so we have about 46 years of data in
the system. There are a few state data bases, such as Florida's, but it is a reasonable assumption that most of the firearms in state databases would also be reported to the FBI for inclusion in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system.

As of April 15, 2014, there were 2,920,846 stolen guns in the system. The current estimates for the number of privately owned guns in the United States is about 310,000,000. Thus, the chance of purchasing a stolen gun in a private sale is likely a bit less than 1 percent. I monitor gun turn in events where police check the guns turned in to
see if they are stolen. The number of stolen guns found at these events is consistent with the above figure,
usually less than one percent. At the turn in event in Phoenix in May of 2012, of the nearly 2,000 guns turned in, four (.2 percent) were found to be stolen.

Of course, there are other indicators that can be used to reduce the possibility of purchasing a stolen firearm. Most states make it illegal to possess a firearm if the serial number has been defaced or removed. I would not buy one. I would be leery of buying a gun on a street corner in a bad neighborhood.

I recall, in the late 1960's, that some criminals tried to sell stolen guns in northern Wisconsin, where I grew up. The criminals likely believed that in the heart of the gun culture, they would have no trouble disposing of some desirable rifles and shotguns for a good price. The people of the area thought the prices were a bit "too good" and reported the crooks, who were captured and prosecuted in short order.

Another consideration is how long ago the firearm might have been stolen. The BATFE concentrates on investigating firearms that were stolen within the last 12-18 months. This amounts to a couple of hundred cases a year. Older than that, it is likely that the firearms have passed through too many hands for the investigation to be fruitful. It is unlikely that any firearm that was stolen more than three years ago will result in any charges. The numbers of firearms reported to NCIC as stolen for the last three years are:

2013: 191,420

2012: 183,801

2011: 174,236

Total: 549,457

This is less than .2 percent of the total firearms in the United States, about one in 500.

A study done by the Bureau of Justice statistics ( BJS) shows a fairly reasonable approximation to the NCIC numbers, using the National Crime Victimization Study. Their study shows 145 thousand victimizations involving the theft of firearms in 2010. They do not give the number of guns stolen, but give an average of 232,00 per year from 2005 to 2010. This is a bit higher than the numbers reported to the FBI, but I find the number plausible, given that many guns are not reported stolen, many never had serial numbers to begin with, and many are homemade or made outside of regular commerce.

My understanding is that virtually all "possession of stolen property" crimes involve an element of "knowing" that the property was stolen. Arizona has a "Trafficking in stolen property" statute:

A. A person who recklessly traffics in the property of another that has been stolen
is guilty of trafficking in stolen property in the second degree.

B. A person who knowingly initiates, organizes, plans, finances, directs, manages
or supervises the theft and trafficking in the property of another that has been stolen
is guilty of trafficking in stolen property in the first degree

1. Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily
explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property
was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its theft.

2. Proof of the purchase or sale of stolen property at a price substantially below
its fair market value, unless satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference
that the person buying or selling the property was aware of the risk that it had been
stolen.

Being in possession of a firearms stolen more than three years ago relieves the buyer of most of the concern about being charged with trafficking in stolen property. I believe that pictures of the firearms purchased at a gun turn in, with a date/time stamp, coupled with a citation of this article, would provide the satisfactory explanation mentioned above.

My retired peace officer friends have told me that prosecution in cases where a private individual buys a firearm without a reasonable knowledge that it is stolen, are unheard of.

If it is somehow discovered that a firearm that you have acquired was stolen sometime in the past, the likely outcome is that you would be asked to return the stolen property. This is not entirely bad, as I would like to have property that was stolen from me returned. If you can contact the legal owner, they might be willing to pay for shipping and transfer charges to have the firearm returned to them.

The NCIC was conceived and executed when computers were enormously expensive, took dedicated and highly trained individuals to operate, and there was no Internet. A possible reform would be to make the database available over the net, so that people could easily determine if a firearm was reported as stolen, or if a firearm that was stolen or lost has been recovered. As with the updating of any legacy code, such a project would entail some expense. The entire existing data for guns, consisting of a small amount of text and numbers, with no pictures or video, would easily fit on a single smart phone. It is a reform that reasonable people could agree to.

Every person must make their own assessment of risk and benefit every day that they live. The risk of purchasing stolen firearms at a gun turn in event is very small. The potential of being prosecuted becomes microscopically small. I have purchased firearms at these events and expect to continue to do so. I have yet to hear of a single person who purchased one or more firearms at one of these events, who was prosecuted for that action.

The FBI supplied the information about the number of stolen guns that are maintained by the NCIC.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat